Constitutional Convention back on burner....

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mehavey

New member
> Marco Rubio is getting behind a state-based effort
> to amend the Constitution with term limits and other
> restrictions on the federal government -- energizing
> the movement as the Republican presidential
> candidates try to woo Tea Party-aligned voters.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-energized-by-rubio-backing.html?intcmp=hpbt2
>
> ...specifically supports using the process to impose a
> congressional balanced-budget amendment and place
> term limits on Supreme Court justices and members
> of Congress.
>
> Congress must call a convention when two-thirds of state
> legislatures file an “application.” The minimum 34 states
> appear to have given some measure of support.

What NO one seems to realize -- or at comment on if they do -- is that such a Convention has the complete and total power to
DO AWAY with the Current Constitution -- ALL of it.**

It can then rewrite everything from soup to nuts; and given current political mob climate I seriously doubt that the original
Bill of Rights (especially the RTKBA) would survive in any recognizable form.




**
(for those who doubt it, how do you think we got the current Constitution ? )
 
Bad idea. Very bad idea.

Once a ConCon is convened, the floor is open, no matter what some politician looking for support may tell you.

The left literally has people who have spent their entire adult lives planning for such an event. You can kiss your rights of free speech, bearing arms, property rights, one man-one vote, and even due process good-bye once they are done with it.

Expect amendments dealing with hate speech, guns, proportional representation, slavery reparations, habeus corpus, you name it, they will ram it through. Goodbye, America.

They won't even get a balanced budget amendment through the process. The states won't sit still for it, they would lose too much money.

Don't fall for the ruse. Rubio has lost his shot at the presidency and is willing to sell out his country and the people for another chance at power. Does anyone wonder why the establishment is going to lose this election cycle?
 
mehavey said:
What NO one seems to realize -- or at comment on if they do -- is that such a Convention has the complete and total power to
DO AWAY with the Current Constitution -- ALL of it.**
Click to expand...

Indeed.... and it likely would... and it would be a DISASTER for freedom of all kinds.
 
Well the good news is if they try to do away with the bill of rights the civil war it kicks off would likely be won by gun owners :P
 
Well the good news is if they try to do away with the bill of rights the civil war it kicks off would likely be won by gun owners
Click to expand...

I agree absolutely, if it comes to civil war, the winners will be the gun owners, but will it be the ordinary citizen or what ever takes the place of our current federal government?

If their side wins, they will be the only gun owners, too.

My crystal ball is cloudy, my magic 8 ball says ask again later, but the fact is that if it comes to civil war, we will already have lost the ideals the Founders wished for us.

and, we are still a LONG, long way from that, despite the panic mongers on both sides.
 
Well the good news is if they try to do away with the bill of rights the civil war it kicks off would likely be won by gun owners :P
Click to expand...

Don't you believe that for a second. If this civil war comes, your handguns and rifles aren't going to do a bit of good against tanks, artillery, aircraft and trained ground troops.

Furthermore, if the civil war does come, your infrastructure is going to be non-existent. That means no water, no groceries,, no electricity, very little communications, no gasoline. and damn near no medical care.

At best you will be a very small, but in the end, ineffectual guerilla army, basically reduced to marauding to get what you need.

And, God forbid, if this civil war does come, we will be sitting ducks for any hostile nation that chooses to invade.

Be careful what you wish for.

A much better plan of action is for all of us to get off our dead asses and get involved with politics, i.e. voting, supporting candidates that suit our needs, and trying to be good will ambassadors for our gun rights as they stand now, which includes censuring morons who walk around in department stores with their AR15s strapped on, etc..
 
I suggest Mark Levin's book "The Liberty Amendments"

Our Founders put Article 5 in the Constitution for a time when the Fed Gov't got too big for its britches.They did not put it there to destroy the Constitution.

The States gather a Convention to propose amendments,then 2/3 must ratify.

I support the Convention.

And,of course,those who support an ever larger,more intrusive Federal Government will oppose anything that allows the States to limit the Fed Gov't.

I have totally lost confidence that either party on the Fed level has any interest in honoring or preserving the Constitution.

It is time for the States to take action.
 
If this civil war comes, your handguns and rifles aren't going to do a bit of good against tanks, artillery, aircraft and trained ground troops.
Click to expand...

This, for me, is a hypothetical scenario but to discuss it we can look at situations elsewhere. Often, if civil war erupts, there is a degree of schism in the military, with some generals moving to the side opposing the current government, so perhaps you might find the sides were not one-sided.

I do agree though, that such an event would be pounced upon by other areas of the world currently being deterred by the likes of NATO. I don't think that they would perhaps choose to invade the US. I don't see the benefit. But other areas, yes, I can see them being invaded.
 
HiBC said:
I support the Convention.
Click to expand...

HiBC said:
I have totally lost confidence that either party on the Fed level has any interest in honoring or preserving the Constitution.
Click to expand...

You do realize who it is that would have control over this convention, yes?

It would be precisely those parties that you don't (and certainly should not) trust.

This is precisely why any such convention would be a disaster for our Constitution and country and ultimately freedom everywhere.
 
Yeah... and the Philadelphia ConCon of 1787 was only to straighten out minor problems
with the Articles of Confederation only ten years prior. :rolleyes:

Mark me down as seeing a ConCon in today's environment as a disaster.



postscript: said:
I have totally lost confidence that either party on the Fed level
has any interest in honoring or preserving the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Given today's runaway Executive branch and all its regulatory & armed enforcement
organizations, what makes one think compliance with any New piece of paper would
be any different than compliance w/ the Old?

It would turn things into a legal & practical free-for-all for at least a generation... if not longer.

.
 
Last edited:
A Constitutional Convention would be a total political disaster.

The same political hacks who refuse to balance the federal budget would insist on Constitutional amendments to ban flag burning, semi-auto guns, lead bullets, gay marriage and a host of other feel good stuff.

Take a look at the OK Constitution and imagine what could happen at the federal level. Among other stuff the OK Constitution defines the specific gravity and flashpoint kerosene.
 
Last edited:
I support the COS, too. I believe a run-a-way convention is impossible when 38 states are needed to ratify.
Click to expand...

You mean the only 10 (or 9 from 2008) more than elected the current president, twice.

9 or 10 more, when BOTH parties will be actively pushing hard for passage?

A Convention where the STARTING point for one side will be the liberal utopia of their dreams and the other side will start with the CURRENT STATUS QUO and "compromise" from there?

Where will that go? Which side will compromise the most? Which side will capitulate and make "reasonable, common sense compromise" like they do on gun control and every single other agenda item from the last 200 years?

Do you really believe this Convention would be an improvement over the current system when one party seeks to "compromise" and the other seeks to destroy it entirely?
 
A con con is a bad, bad idea. We got lucky the first time...in today's environment with today's people, we would not be so lucky.

If we don't have the numbers to get a single, specific amendment (term limits, for example) introduced, passed and ratified, what makes you think we'd have better luck throwing the entire document up for grabs?

Considering that our current government has little respect for the current document, what makes you think they will have any more respect for new amendments or a new document?
 
BTW: Alabama, Florida and Louisiana rescinded their calls for a Constitutional Convention. Nevada purged their support for same.
 
I believe that "the more local" governments have a better chance of righting this Republic than anything in Washington D.C. so yes, I support a convention of the states legislatures.
 
full case load said:
I believe that "the more local" governments have a better chance of righting this Republic than anything in Washington D.C. so yes, I support a convention of the states legislatures.
Click to expand...
Restoring more power to the states can be done without a CC. The nation was run this way for the better part of 150 years.

Suggest starting with a constitutional amendment limiting Congressional bills to one subject. I believe this could be passed without a CC and would eliminate a vast amount of pork-barrel spending and unnecessarily labyrinthine programs. Next step: Abolish the electoral college.

Term limits are a dumb idea because this will allow powerful special interests to essentially appoint lackeys by providing campaign funding. (This happens all the time in municipal elections where the candidates backed by the Citizen's Council / Chamber of Commerce / Bar Association / Rotary Club / <insert name of organization> always seem to win.) Better idea: Mandate a runoff election any time a congressional candidate earns less than a simple majority of the overall popular vote. This will make it easier to defeat incumbents in states that don't already use this system.

Actually, my favorite idea is to amend the Constitution such that Congress can call a new Presidential election at any time with a 2/3 vote in both houses – and the election is held exactly 90 days thereafter. This will end the absurd never-ending campaigning and make the President much more accountable to Congress. (OK, perhaps I'm REALLY dreaming.)
 
Last edited:
I believe a run-a-way convention is impossible when 38 states are needed to ratify.
Click to expand...

What makes you think 38 states will be needed to ratify?

Here's a couple of points not already brought up..

A new Constitutional Convention put everything on the bargaining table. And, everything means EVERYTHING.

The sitting administration REMAINS in power until the convention is concluded. Even if that passes through the normal election cycle.

The sitting Congress decides WHO is represented, AND, in what amount.

Think about that. They could, for an extreme example, give each state one vote, and give California and New York 50 votes each. And all they would need to do that, AND HAVE IT BE LEGAL is a simple majority in the sitting Congress when the ConCon is legally called for.

How do you think THAT would work out for most of us?

The ConCon ( once convened) could (again, with a simple ONE VOTE majority) abolish our government and proclaim Hillary (or anyone else) King, Queen, President for Life, Furher, or anything else they could get passed. AND it would be legal.

They could pass a constitution that does NOT require 38 states to ratify it, in order to be valid. They could pass one that only requires California to ratify it, and it would be binding on the rest of us. They could abolish the Supreme Court, or they could abolish representative government. They could do ANYTHING they can get passed by the vote of ONE delegate, a delegate that THEY choose, not us.

Which ever ideology holds the "whip hand" in the sitting Congress when the Convention is officially called for has the potential to do all or any of these things I have mentioned, and anything else, besides.

It is a tremendous opportunity for them to take total power, and it would be legal if a SINGLE VOTE majority approved it.

Essentially our country could be "stolen" from us, completely, and under our law, it would be legal.

History has a very good model to follow for that, Nazi Germany. There was no armed revolution (unlike Russia), the Nazis were able to manipulate public opinion (Reichstag Fire, etc.,) to get enough elected power to be able to write new laws, and pass them, which was TOTALLY LEGAL under their democratic system, laws that gave them, and only them, total power from then on.

A Constitutional Convention can give that same legal authority to anything desired by what ever power block controls it. And the sitting Congress gets to decide how much potential power either side has, because they control representation at the Convention.

Our Founders gave us "a Republic, if you can keep it.."

A Constitutional Convention has the potential to be the greatest threat to our Republic we have ever faced.

This is NOT a subject to be taken lightly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top